THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated

18.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.3401 of 2025 in ECIR/HYZO/42/

2022 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr. P. Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Dileep Kumar Bommena, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Mr. Narender Naik, learned Standing Counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement, representing the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the date of offence falls prior to the amendment of Cr.P.C. i.e. the crime number itself denotes that it occurred in 2022 and thus, provisions of Cr.P.C. are not applicable and recourse cannot be taken to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’). He further submitted that as per Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., the police custody can be granted only during the period of first fifteen days and not thereafter. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 26.08.2025 till 09.09.2025, the first remand period got completed. It means to say the first fifteen days is over and thus, the police custody cannot be granted after the said period. He further submitted that Crl.M.P. No.3401 of 2025 was filed before the trial court seeking police custody of the petitioner on 09.09.2025 i.e. on completion of the first remand period and the trial court has granted police custody for 10 days which is to begin from 20.09.2025 to 29.09.2025. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that granting of police custody after completion of first 15 days is against the principle laid down in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1991) 3 SCC 141. He, therefore, prayed to quash the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent has submitted that Section 167 Cr.P.C., is not applicable to the present case and that the procedure under BNSS has to be applied and Section 187 of BNSS clearly envisages that the total period of 15 days custody can be given to the police and it does not limit the provision to give police custody only to the first period of 15 days of remand. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in V. Senthil Balaji v. State, represented by Deputy Director and others contending that even under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., police custody can be granted after the first fifteen days of remand.

5. Perused the record.

2 (2024) 3 SCC 51

6. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner is the accused No.4 and he is alleged to be the managerial person of M/s.Sahiti Infratec Ventures India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Company’) and was a Director of the said Company from 2018 to 2020 and in the said capacity, he got actively involved in the sale of properties of customers of Sahiti Group on the pretext of sale of inventory without any necessary permissions and assisted accused No.1-B. Lakshminarayana in collection of funds by sale of inventory in the illegally launched projects of the said Company. Thus, he cheated the innocent public and mis-appropriated the said amounts and gained wrongfully to a tune of Rs.72,81,98,000/-. Thus, he is alleged to have involved in acquisition, possession, concealment of proceeds of crime and thus, he is facing allegations under Section 3 read with 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘PML Act').

7. Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience:

“167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.

(1) xxx (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers